Hi All. I work with a group that does a lot of NGS Library Prep, and they have been using Revvity Sciclones for many years now, and are looking to upgrade to a new platform.
Amongst other options, one platform that we are considering is the FireFly/FireFly+. The reasoning behind this is that they are used to having Prewritten protocols by Revvity that are adapted to their liquid handler with “minimal effort”. The Firefly seems like a more modern version of the Siclcone with an easier to use software and a less sensitive instrument overall. The smaller footprint is also a positive in this case, and I really like the idea of using the positive displacement dispensers for many tasks as well.
I know that we could go with other larger platforms that allow more flexibility, but I’d like to know if anyone has had any good or bad experiences working with a Firefly. In particular, any notes about reliability would be great. The Sciclones are very sensitive and seem to be in constant need of repair.
I have not used a Firefly, but I have used SPT (Formerly TTP Labtech) stuff before and they make top notch products. I would expect that the Firefly follows the same level of quality and reliability as the rest of their stuff.
Just curious what you’d dispense with the Firefly? I’m loosely close to NGS library prep but don’t see quite how the Firefly would fit into our protocols.
There are a few benefits I would see to using the dispenser. They are positive displacement, so it should make liquid class development much easier that with air displacement pipettes. Second, it would be allow lower dead volume/increased speed to use the dispenser over traditional pipetting. They have reservoirs that are 75-240 uL dead volume, with a syringe dead volume of 15 uL. It’s pretty fast too at dispensing, especially if you can use more than 1 dispenser.
I’d probably use it to dispense various mastermixes or beads or other difficult to pipette reagents, but honestly I could use it for any reagent addition really. I’d only need the 96/384 well tips to aspirate/dispense samples or waste solutions. Still need to figure out how costs work out for consumables, but definitely interested in it.
I like the look of the firefly a lot, and it fits a ton into a small package. The one quirk that I’m not too sure about is the 96 probe head. It seems like you’d have to prep all of the master mixes yourself in addition to normalizing yourself since the 96MPH can’t do individual dilutions. I’m sure SPT has an approach to this issue, but it’s definitely something to consider vs. a liquid handler with single channels available.
I have used many SPT products, and what I like best about them is their customer service. They truly take care of their customers. I have used their mosquito liquid handler, compound storage units (I had seven at one point), readers, and more. I always consider them a reliable partner. It’s the little extras, in addition to the quality of their products, that make them a very attractive option.
Thank you @josequiroz and @jnecr for sharing your feedback and experiences, that was helpful!
@BHam , you are right, the only way to normalize things woudl be to use the dispensers to dilute samples to the stocks, and not make individual dilutions. We have access to an older smaller Tecan Freedom Evo with 8 channels that can handle those dilutions though, so thats less of a concern for our situation. Same for the master mixes, their current approach requires them to make the master mixes manually, so thats not a hard ask either. But all valid points for others to consider if that matters in their situation.
I am also very interested in a dragonfly for NGS workflows. Right now for POC I am using a UKRobotics D2 for all master mixes. It’s great (the best deal in automation really) but clunky changing the syringe and flushing the valve every time. I do like that I can get a very low dead volume with the D2. I think the SPT could make my life better.
We are using a Firefly and it has been performing really well. It is fast, precise and the interface is very intuitive. We do NGS with it (minus the normalisation, we currently use a Tecan for that).
And compared to the esoteric incomprehensibility of Hamilton and Venus, the interface and logic is really so nice and easy to use that it makes you wonder what is the reason for not using it for everything? If you want to get stuff done in your lab, the Firefly is a good choice. If you want to spend your time solving programming problems there is Venus
TLDR: If you want Revvity to do it all for you (including troubleshooting), they provide good services for that. If you want to customize things on your own, program from scratch, and troubleshoot internally for faster turnaround times, its a lot harder to do so.
Pros:
Revvity does a very good job of developing protocols for many NGS kits. If thats what you want to do, then they have gotten a lot of the bases covered for you. This includes running the method through full sequencing results, which very few liquid handler companies do for most of the kits available.
They do a good job of building good user prompts for their methods.
With Most of the Sciclone decks being the same, its easier to port protocols from one system to another.
You can run through a method step by step , which is great for troubleshooting.
You don’t have to teach all labware, but only a subset.
At least in the area I am, service has always been good and timely for the most part.
They have a good apps team that will develop custom protocols for you if you dont want to write them yourself.
Cons
If you have a hard crash, you will likely need an FSE to come out and check on it.
If you do want to edit methods, its a lot harder to follow along than in some other liquid handler software. The methods make sense if you read through them, but each NGS protocol is full of many,many, many smaller submethods, and you can only have one open at a time in the software. This makes it rather cumbersome if you want to read through the method to understand it in its entirety. This is also true for labware names (Seahorse reservoirs being mentioned in many protocols, despite Agilent having bought them ~ 10 years ago).
While Revvity has done a great job of building methods, they clearly reuse a lot of parts from older methods, and the comments in the method sometimes don’t make sense for what is actually happening. The method works, but the commenting artifacts make it difficult to follow sometimes.
Doing the maintenance for the 96 channel head is important! If you dont lubricate the head (or if you have a dry/static lab), it is very easy to pull the tip box along with tips when loading tips, which will then crush into the next labware. You need to be careful and keep track of partial column usage, as its possible to over-lubricate the head as well.
If you’re doing anything more than replacing a user prompt picture or editing wording in one VBA protocol, then you’ll need to know VSTA or VBA to create user prompts on your own.
The software relies on some very old supporting software, and if you have a strict IT department, then that may raise some eyebrows with them.
Those are the initial thoughts that come to mind, but feel free to ask other questions if they come up!
What does one of these bad boys cost? I’ve seen them in action before and they seem pretty useful, but I’m curious about the financial decision behind purchasing one
